Acceptable Perversion

[cantdog]

Ah, some common sense. Motive doesn't determine the seriousness of a crime. The inherent harm of the act itself does. Unless it's a matter of consenting adults, mutilation is a crime.

I'm afraid there are lots of crimes with a test of intent in them, Sev. You must demonstrate intent to prove the case. Intent is a very ancient test of a situation, and there can be little justice if it doesn't figure in the evidence somewhere. Accidents are different cases from deliberate acts, for instance. Common sense is on the other side of that line.

 

[shereads]

I'm afraid there are lots of crimes with a test of intent in them, Sev. You must demonstrate intent to prove the case. Intent is a very ancient test of a situation, and there can be little justice if it doesn't figure in the evidence somewhere. Accidents are different cases from deliberate acts, for instance. Common sense is on the other side of that line.

I agree that intent is used to distinguish between accidental homicide and pre-meditated murder. But while I disagree with Sev that what happens between consenting adults is always a private matter, I agree with him that sexual perversion is no better or worse motive for risking someone's life than any other.

If I can convince a jury that you murdered Sev because he refused to amputate your penis, I can prosecute you for first-degree murder - not because you're a pervert, but because Sev's death was pre-meditated.

But what if you killed Sev because he was about to write you out of his will and leave everything to McKenna? It's still pre-medidated murder; it's no more or less serious because the motive was greed instead of perversion.

My point is, motive is relevent here only to the extent that you had a motive, which weakens your claim that you kiled Sev by accident. The type of motive is irrelevent; being murdered for racial reasons or out of sexual jealousy or to fatten your bank account leaves your victim equally dead.

An accidental death by strangulation, assuming no motive can be established to support a charge of pre-meditated murder, is accidental homicide. The fact that it happened during consentual sex is an explanation, period. It's not an excuse, just as it's not the reason we prosecute the crime.

 

[Pure]

uhhh.... folks, Miewes stabbed Brandes to death. there's objective harm. that would amount to some crime (unless totally accidental and unavoidable on the part of the taker of life), e.g., manslaughter.


But further, the act is murder: 'murder' is illicit, intentional killing in most cases. Miewes intended that Brandes die, and B did. Indeed, 'first degree' murder is premeditated, which--further--this was, since they made an appointment to meet at M's house.

Case closed except for 'mercy killing,' a plea which the court rejected. Presumably, for a 'mercy killing' the person must be requiring mercy, i.e., be in deep, lethal, painful shit, not merely fed up and miserable.

 

[shereads]

uhhh.... folks, Miewes stabbed Brandes to death. there's objective harm. that would amount to some crime (unless totally accidental and unavoidable on the part of the taker of life), e.g., manslaughter.


But further, the act is murder: 'murder' is illicit, intentional killing in most cases. Miewes intended that Brandes die, and B did. Indeed, 'first degree' murder is premeditated, which--further--this was, since they made an appointment to meet at M's house.

Case closed except for 'mercy killing,' a plea which the court rejected. Presumably, for a 'mercy killing' the person must be requiring mercy, i.e., be in deep, lethal, painful shit, not merely fed up and miserable.

So the sexual aspect is irrelevent to the seriousness of the crime.

 

[Liar]

So the sexual aspect is irrelevent to the seriousness of the crime.

If you'd ask me..not sure. Because the crime was kinda pretty darn serious to begin with. It's hard to judge whether it's more despickable or not when it already broke the needle on my despickabilitymeter.

 

[McKenna]

I'm not sure who said it previously (Boxlicker?) but when I think of bestiality, I tend to think of dogs copulating with women. I admit that when I started this thread, my bias was towards thinking that in that particular scenario, the dog was not being harmed.

I'm staring my fallibility as a human being in the face while I admit this, but to me it's like men crying rape: If you get an erection, if you orgasm and ejaculate, it seems to me you're enjoying the act.

That's my gut reaction.

My reasoning tells me, however, that physical reactions are far different than emotional/psychological ones; while physically the body may be reacting to what is going on, the body may be acting against what the man psychologically or emotionally wants. I believe this is possible because teenage boys seem to get stiffies sometimes whether they want them or not. It is a physical and/or hormonal reaction, and not necessarily a conscious choice as they sit in chemistry class pondering the mysteries of the universe.

This leads me to believe that although physically the dog may be enjoying what is going on, he is unable to voice his consent or refusal; because of this, I have come to the conclusion that it is not right to exploit a dog's physical reaction for the purpose of sexual gratification.

Of course, no one ever asks a dog if it wants to become a drug detector, either, but I think that's different.

Isn't it?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You and the poodles. Just don't start humping my leg, okay?

Um - I've had some very pleasant experiences with (human) leg humping. Sure you don't want to reconsider?

 

[Liar]

Of course, no one ever asks a dog if it wants to become a drug detector, either, but I think that's different.

Isn't it?

It's a blurry line. Nobody ever asks lab mice if they want to try human medicine for a living.

 

[Goldie Munro]

I so wish I had been around at the beginning of this discussion (top topic McKenna!!) as I am sure that everything I have to say has already been said.

Any perversion is acceptable between consenting adults - bestiality is the 'bete noir' (pun fully intended) of perversions since animals really cannot give their consent!

 

[McKenna]

Um - I've had some very pleasant experiences with (human) leg humping. Sure you don't want to reconsider?

Have I ever mentioned my thigh fetish? Let's just say there's a very good reason it exists.

It's a blurry line. Nobody ever asks lab mice if they want to try human medicine for a living.

Exactly. Of course one could make the argument that lab mice are used for the greater human good, yadda yadda... But maybe people who exploit animals for sexual gratification are doing so to resist committing heinous acts against humans? More to think about, I guess. Who wants to play devil's advocate?

 

[shereads]

I so wish I had been around at the beginning of this discussion (top topic McKenna!!) as I am sure that everything I have to say has already been said.

Any perversion is acceptable between consenting adults - bestiality is the 'bete noir' (pun fully intended) of perversions since animals really cannot give their consent!

Exactly. Especially cats, whose facial expressions aren't nearly as easy to interpret as dogs.

Dogs, as expressive as they are, could too easily be thought to be consenting to sex when actually they're just wondering if you'd like to play fetch.

Gerbils and hamsters want nothing to do with us to begin with, and that's before sex enters into the relationship.

In my view, animals should be considered underage.

 

[McKenna]

In my view, animals should be considered underage.

Would that be 1 dog year = -3 human years?

 

[Liar]

Have I ever mentioned my thigh fetish? Let's just say there's a very good reason it exists.

Because thighs* are hawt? Really, what other reason do you need?

*when attached properly to humans, that is.

 

[LadyAria]

Unaccpetable Perversions to me:

pedophilia
ephebophilia
incest (even if these seems really popular on Lit)
frotteurism
zoophilia
biastophilia
necrophilia
necrozoophilia
zoosadism
apotemnophilia
oprophilia
crush fetish
emetophilia
vorarephilia

Of course, personal opinion. I have my own fetishes I'm sure plenty of people find unacceptable.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Unaccpetable Perversions to me:

pedophilia
ephebophilia
incest (even if these seems really popular on Lit)
frotteurism
zoophilia
biastophilia
necrophilia
necrozoophilia
zoosadism
apotemnophilia
oprophilia
crush fetish
emetophilia
vorarephilia

Of course, personal opinion. I have my own fetishes I'm sure plenty of people find unacceptable.

These must be really bad, because I don't know what half of them are!

 

[McKenna]

These must be really bad, because I don't know what half of them are!

Me either. I'll look 'em up, just 'cause I'm curious that way.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Have I ever mentioned my thigh fetish? Let's just say there's a very good reason it exists.

Precisely!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Me either. I'll look 'em up, just 'cause I'm curious that way.

Good for you! For my part, I think I'll let them remain as mysteries, intimating the existence of a vast dark netherworld of human perversion and depravity - it makes life more tingly and exciting to think that such things exist beyond my whitebread existance.

 

[McKenna]

Roxanne, Don't Look!

Pedophilia: The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.

Ephebophilia: Sexual preference in which an adult is primarily or exclusively sexually attracted to postpubescent adolescents.

Incest: The crime of sexual intercourse, cohabitation, or marriage between persons within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity wherein marriage is legally forbidden.

Frotteurism: It is a paraphilia involving rubbing against a nonconsensual person to achieve sexual arousal or even orgasm, discreetly without being discovered, typically in a public place such as a crowded train.

Zoophilia: Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with animals.

Biastophilia: A paraphilia in which sexual arousal is dependent on, or is responsive to, the act of sexually assaulting an unconsenting person, especially a stranger. (A paraphilia is a type of mental disorder characterized by a preference for or obsession with unusual sexual practices, as pedophilia, sadomasochism, or exhibitionism. )

Necrophilia: Erotic attraction to or sexual contact with corpses.

Necrozoophilia: Combination of necrophilia and zoophilia.

Zoosadism: Inflicting pain on an animal, sometimes with a sexual component, in order to derive pleasure.

Apotemnophilia: The overwhelming desire to amputate one or more healthy limbs or other parts of the body.

Oprophilia: Couldn't find a definition for this one.

Crush Fetish: a paraphilia which primarily consists of the desire to see others (generally members of the opposite sex) crush inanimate objects or small creatures.

Typically, those crushing will use their buttocks or feet making this fetish popular amongst many foot fetishists, as crushing by feet is usually the main focus. The foot (barefoot or in shoes) is thus often idolised by someone with a crush fetish.

Emetophilia: A sexual fetish in which an individual is aroused by vomiting or observing others vomit.

Vorarephilia: The interest or paraphilia in which a person fantasizes about eating another person and/or creature, being eaten him/herself, and/or watching another be eaten.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

re: "Roxanne - don't look"

Once you did all the work I couldn't resist - I'll just have to imagine some other dark corners of human depravity, like married couples who get cracker crumbs in the conjugal bet, etc.

Some of those sound like something out of Monty Python - "Vorarephilia."


PS. Thank you for the spoiler alert - very considerate.

 

[McKenna]

Some of those sound like something out of Monty Python - "Vorarephilia."

Frankly, I'm still cringing over the "ginger-root in anus" thing Zoot mentioned. Yeouch.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Getting animals' consent shouldn't be a problem. My dog would agree to do anything if he knew there was some cheese in it for him afterwards. He'd probably even do Paris Hilton for a chunk of sharp cheddar.

 

[Pure]

my dog too will do anything for cheese. in the song, blondes do it for diamonds. any difference?

i must say you guys are very perverted with all this doggy stuff. don't ya know the most common--and fairly common--zoophilia is that committed by farm boys, on for instance, female sheep.

if you remember the woody allen story about the guy having the affair with the sheep, and agreeing to meet her up in a hotel room he'd rented, was caught because the staff became suspicious why he was taking a large box of Woolite up to his room.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I agree that intent is used to distinguish between accidental homicide and pre-meditated murder. But while I disagree with Sev that what happens between consenting adults is always a private matter, I agree with him that sexual perversion is no better or worse motive for risking someone's life than any other.

If I can convince a jury that you murdered Sev because he refused to amputate your penis, I can prosecute you for first-degree murder - not because you're a pervert, but because Sev's death was pre-meditated.

But what if you killed Sev because he was about to write you out of his will and leave everything to McKenna? It's still pre-medidated murder; it's no more or less serious because the motive was greed instead of perversion.

My point is, motive is relevent here only to the extent that you had a motive, which weakens your claim that you kiled Sev by accident. The type of motive is irrelevent; being murdered for racial reasons or out of sexual jealousy or to fatten your bank account leaves your victim equally dead.

An accidental death by strangulation, assuming no motive can be established to support a charge of pre-meditated murder, is accidental homicide. The fact that it happened during consentual sex is an explanation, period. It's not an excuse, just as it's not the reason we prosecute the crime.

Not sure about assisted suicide. Probably okay, but I get the point regarding having a hard time proving that someone requested it. One might argue that ancient eunuchs had the right to sacrifice their manhoods to pursue careers. That's another grey zone. Again, I can understand your objection to that.

Nor am I saying that intent has no validity. I was, however, agreeing with you that, as you say here, once it is proven to be deliberate, the motive is immaterial. Well, as disturbing as your example might be for me, LOL, I was mainly saying that this point regarding motive was common sense. I don't see the point of hate crimes laws, since the murder is the crime, not the despicable racial bias (as bad as it is, we shouldn't resort to Orwellian thought police and such).

I do generally hold, however, as you accurately put it, that matters between consenting adults are none of the State's business. That's the civil-libertarian in me. Just not sure about whether or not you're correct about mutilation and other things. After all, Jehovah's Witnesses harm their bodies by refusing blood transfusions. One might argue that they have that right. On the other hand, can one really honor the request of someone to kill them because they claimed that it would cause them to become reborn as a captain of devils? That was an actual case of a Satanist, and Satanism is no less valid a religion than the Jehovah Witnesses. We can't discriminate, but one seems much more like murder than the other. Maybe because it is more active. I don't know. It's a grey zone, like I said. Even a Libertarian like me has problems with that.

 

[oggbashan]

Once you did all the work I couldn't resist - I'll just have to imagine some other dark corners of human depravity, like married couples who get cracker crumbs in the conjugal bet, etc.

Some of those sound like something out of Monty Python - "Vorarephilia."


PS. Thank you for the spoiler alert - very considerate.

Unbirth is a subset of vorerephilia - four of my stories deal with this fetish. 'The Virgin Unbirth' is a mild, but long, introduction.

Og